Hi Andrew,
On 11 November 2016 at 14:22, Andrew Duda wrote:
> Simon,
>
> So I looked into this more after you asked this, and it looks very
> platform dependent. I tested on two builds: sandbox and a version of
> x86-common. The before/after for sandbox image was
> 5486016-5486800(+784). The befo
Simon,
So I looked into this more after you asked this, and it looks very
platform dependent. I tested on two builds: sandbox and a version of
x86-common. The before/after for sandbox image was
5486016-5486800(+784). The before/after for my x86 build was
3306100-3305908(-192). So memory saving is
On 8 November 2016 at 11:53, aduda wrote:
> From: Andrew Duda
>
> Padding verification was done against static SHA/RSA pair arrays which
> take up a lot of static memory, are mostly 0xff, and cannot be reused
> for additional SHA/RSA pairings. The padding can be easily computed
> according to PKC
3 matches
Mail list logo
